This website is a collection of my writings which primarily deals with issues of political and socio-economic issues in the Caribbean.
It also contains links to important resources on the region and it's people.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The relationship between China and Guyana goes back over 40 years.
During the height of the Cold War, and in contrast to the policy of most
of the hemisphere which was under the influence of the United States at
the time, Guyana and China established relations on June 27, 1972.
While the relationship was initially established in order to foster
mutual cooperation and development, the past decade has witnessed a
surge of Chinese interest in Guyana’s natural resources, leading many
Guyanese citizens to question the value of this supposedly equal and
beneficial partnership.

An important case in point comes from the controversial Bai Shan Lin
investment plans for Guyana. The Bai Shan Lin company was granted a
forestry concession which consists of nearly one million hectares of
rainforest, from which it will harvest logs and ship them out of Guyana.
In addition to the acquisition of significant land holdings, the
company has announced the creation of a very large “Guyana-China Timber
Industry Economic & Trading Cooperation Park” and a 400-acre “Bai
Shan Lin Real Estate Development Project.”

While the investment is indeed large, it is more likely that the
benefit to the people of Guyana will be quite small outside of political
circles given the nature of Chinese companies to import their own labor
to staff operations in Guyana. While many Guyanese people are
underemployed or in need of work, Chinese laborers were brought into
Guyana for the construction of the new Marriott Hotel in
the capital of Georgetown earlier this year. With the growing amount of
criticism over the surge of recent Chinese investment in Guyana's
growing forestry and mining sectors, the political opposition has called for investment
agreements between the Guyanese government and Bai Shan Lin to be made
public—but so far little headway has been made. However, the details
which have emerged paint a troubling picture for any attempt for Guyana
to establish a model of sustainable and equitable development.

Some of these investment policy “advantages” of doing business in
Guyana were highlighted in a PowerPoint presentation created by Bai Shan
Lin. The presentation reveals that
Guyanese trade agreements with China allows for “machinery, equipment,
raw material, transportation means and office supplies for production
use are exempted from import duty and excise tax.” Furthermore, under
the agreement, new enterprises benefit from tax exemptions, custom
duties on exports, and have no regulations on the foreign transfer of
their profits.

A recent article in the Guyana Chronicle stated that “Guyana is open
for business” when perhaps a more appropriate slogan would be that the
Guyanese politicians are instead selling the country out to business.
Guyana’s President Donald Ramotar sought to defend China’s growing
presence in Guyana against the rising criticism, stating that
“History will show you that China has not exploited and colonised any
country. In fact, the record of China… it has been helping to build
societies in Africa and other parts of the world, and we must stand up
and make the voice of the majority heard because there seems to be
people financed from somewhere, dedicating themselves to slander and
attack.”

Assuming that models of economic development or trade are static is
unrealistic and of little value when trying to understand what is really
happening on the ground. The term “Capitalism with Chinese
Characteristics” was adopted as an easy way to describe and distinguish
the uniquely regulated nature of the Chinese economy. It seems that a
similar term could be adopted for China’s resource based foreign
investment policy.

While the Guyanese government is a willing partner in these new
investment agreements, it is important to realize that it is an
incredibly unbalanced relationship that maintains the essence of
colonialism—the exportation of raw materials and the increasing
dependence on Chinese manufactured goods, capital, technology, and
knowledge. While it is true that China has not followed the European or
North American model of instituting a formal model of colonialism via
violent invasion and occupation, it does not mean that China is not
engaging in a modern form of colonialism with Chinese characteristics.

While countries all over the world are scrambling for investment, it
should be done in a manner that will protect the long-term interests of
the recipient nation’s population and environment. To jumpstart an
economy dependent on short-term resource extraction without ensuring
that necessary regulations in place is a recipe for disaster. The strong
interest of China in Guyana provides a real opportunity for the
government to establish policies which will generate value and public
benefits from their responsible and regulated extraction of their
natural resources.

According to the most recent World Bank statistics,
an estimated 43% of the Guyanese population falls below the poverty
line, with 29% living in what is categorized as extreme poverty. In
order to address the longstanding roots of poverty and inequality in
Guyana, revenue from resource extraction to fund state investments in
healthcare, education, and social services is needed. However, China and
Guyana both share a similar feature—on paper they are both committed to
socialism and serving the people. Yet, with a government selling off
incredible quantities of land to Chinese companies, without any real
change it is hard to imagine that the current acceptance of “colonialism
with Chinese Characteristics” as the status quo will bring any tangible
or visible return for the people of Guyana.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

A cursory look at the history of most countries' foreign policy
towards Latin America and the Caribbean can often be categorized as
being under the influence of colonialism, the Cold War, or neoliberal
fundamentalism—depending on the era. Even today, the foreign policy of
emerging powers such as China and middle level countries such as Canada
are primarily driven in regard to control over the region’s natural
resources. To date, there has been very little genuine engagement
between the region and outside nations (as Cuba and Venezuela have wide
ranging aid and cooperation policies) in order to help cultivate an
environment of equitable, respectful, and progressive relations. One
nation which appears to be countering this trend is Norway.

Before going any further, it is important to state that no nation’s
foreign policy is perfect, but instead they should be realistically
compared on a scale ranking them from the terrible to those which are
better.

To provide some context, Norway has not always followed an
independent path in the hemisphere. For example, through the mid-1960s,
as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Norway was
loyal to U.S. policy in the region. However, this began to change in
the late 1960s when Norway broke ranks with U.S. policy over the Cuban
embargo and military intervention in the Dominican Republic. Due to
large offshore oil deposits in the North Sea, Norway has extracted the
resource to the benefit of its people. The Norwegian state-owned oil
company, Statoil, has long been active in Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil.
With this is mind, the Norwegian government has remarked that despite
an interest to make money via the extraction of oil abroad, it is
central to the government's foreign and development policy that Norway should not "...take from the developing countries the management rights and remedies that have been important to develop our own society."

One area in which Norway provides an important way forward is in Haiti. Since the earthquake of 2010, Norway has provided $2.5 million
to support Cuba’s medical brigades in Haiti. The Norwegian government
should be credited with identifying and supporting a health program
which delivers incredible results to the people who need it most—while
the majority of other nations continue to pour money down the drain to
unaccountable and often ineffective non-governmental organizations.
Cuba’s medical brigades have helped over 3 million Haitians, and the
Cuban government is seeking to build a Haitian staffed national
healthcare system at the primary level in the long term. This is not to
say that Norway was the first or only nation to support Cuba’s medical
programs in Haiti—as Brazil and Venezuela have also provided important
funding for the initiative—but Norway is the first European nation to
follow this model.

A second area in which Norway is taking an independent stance is when
it comes to the Colombia Peace Talks. The talk to end a half century of
civil war between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and
the government of Colombia has been taking place in Havana. On May 26,
the Colombian government and FARC released a joint communique which stated that
“We especially want to thank Cuba and Norway, the guarantor countries
of this process, for their permanent support and for the atmosphere of
trust that they foster. The presence of their representatives at the
Table of conversations is a fundamental factor for their development.”

In contrast to the policy of Norway trying to find a solution to end
the violence, countries such as the United States and Canada have long
supported destructive and divisive policies which have failed. Plan
Colombia, undertaken by the United States, has sought to combat drug
trafficking and the FARC and has had an incredibly harsh impact upon
innocent peasant communities. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Canada recently signed a free trade deal with Colombia, long known as a
site of serious human rights violations. When asked about signing the
controversial deal, Harper remarked that
““We can’t block the progress of a country like this for protectionist
reasons, and you trying to use human rights as a front for doing that.”

Thus contrasted against the regressive foreign policy of the United
States and Canada in the region, Norway appears to be doing a better job
in aligning themselves with the priorities of the region’s people.
However, like anything else, to give Norway a blank check for its
progressive foreign policy in the Americas would be overlooking the less
glamorous side of Norway’s foreign policy. Norway is home to a rapidly
expanding arms industry—with Brazil and Chile listed
as some of its top customers. What is important despite the negatives
is the fact that Norway is choosing to ignore the harmful and out of
touch positions of “global leaders” when it comes to development policy
in Haiti or how to achieve peace in Colombia. It is this important
independence in foreign policy decisions which should inspire the people
of other countries to demand more from their governments in setting a
more equitable and respectful global agenda.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

In comparison to many of its neighbors in Central America and the
Caribbean, Belize has pursued a very effective and comprehensive policy
of conservation in order to capitalize on the growing segment of
eco-tourism. However, given the stresses of economic development, Belize
is facing a difficult balancing act when it comes to determining the
limits of environmental and cultural conservation.

Like most Caribbean countries, Belize is burdened with extremely
high-energy costs—yet it was expected that this would change when Belize
discovered deposits of oil in 2005. This recent discovery of oil has
sparked a debate about the future of Belize’s economic development.
Earlier this year, the Belizean court stopped government plans
to begin contract offshore oil deposits to inexperienced companies in
the Meso American Reef—the world’s second largest barrier reef and a
World Heritage Site. Due to the devastation brought by the BP oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the decision to drill within such an
ecologically sensitive and important zone was regarded as highly
controversial within Belize. The court case resulted from the work of
conservation organizations sparking a “people’s referendum” in which 96%
of those who participated voted against offshore drilling.

The desire of Belize’s people to protect their environment in spite
of official government policy could be seen with the seaside village of
Placencia voting against the construction of a cruise ship port which
would see ships carrying 3,000 passengers arrive weekly. The Placencia
Tour Operators Association voted in 2010 to block the development, stating that
it would result in “adverse effects on the area's fragile marine and
inland environments such as coral reefs and fish and bird habitats.”
Furthermore, cruise ship passengers were regarded as undermining
Placencia’s overnight tourism industry and its many small businesses.
Despite the local opposition, Belize’s Prime Minister, Dean Barrow,
recently remarked that
local communities (it is estimated that 60% of the population are
classified as living in poverty) should consider the economic benefits
of constructing a port for mass cruise tourism.

Despite these important victories, not all efforts to protect
important sites have been positive. The latest example of economic
development undermining Belize’s cultural heritage could be seen with
the bulldozing of the 100-foot tall Mayan pyramid located in the Nohmul
complex which is over 2300 years old. The pyramid was bulldozed as
filler for a new road in the northern part of Belize.

Under the law, all Mayan pyramids in Belize are protected, yet it
appears that the incident at Nohmul was not the only instance. Norman
Hammond, a professor of archaeology at Boston University remarked that
“bulldozing Maya mounds for road fill is an endemic problem in Belize
(the whole of the San Estevan center has gone, both of the major
pyramids at Louisville, other structures at Nohmul, many smaller sites),
but this sounds like the biggest yet.” It has been reported that a
criminal investigation is underway and charges may be laid against the
construction company. Meanwhile, the political opposition has argued that
the construction of the road into northern Belize was poorly planned
but carried out on government orders to gain support from the region.

While it appears that the people of Belize have often been the
catalyst for conservation in spite of recent government policy, it
remains to be seen how long this can continue. The people of Belize
realize that the conservation of the environment will provide
opportunities for the long term despite the pressures of foreign
investors, and the government seems intent on undermining the ecological
and cultural treasures of Belize for short-term economic profit. It can
only be hoped that other nations in the region become inspired by the
example set by the people of Belize in rejecting mass tourism in favor
of smaller scale but more sustainable model.